Poverty, Teachers, and Public Image

The New Yorker recently published a piece calling for the end of humiliating teachers. I found it emotionally hard to read, perhaps because seeing the teacher struggle laid out there in black and white made it too real. The article summarizes the fall of the profession under the standardized testing movement, what tying school success to test scores has done to the teaching culture, and the need to make teaching a viable career path to support a middle class family. It also identifies the real culprit to our schools' struggles not as the teachers themselves, but poverty.

After teaching for four years in a "no excuse" school, where we are not allowed to mention poverty as a reason a student may be performing below grade level, I find myself shying away from any mention of poverty as a reason for poor performance. I do believe that as teachers we need to hold all students to the same measures of accountability, and that we cannot use poverty or disability as an excuse. We need to do whatever we can to get every student in front of us up to grade level. We cannot control what is going on outside our school's walls. We cannot guarantee our students have health care coverage, enough food, and proper supervision, but we can fight as hard as possible to ensure they are being given the absolute best education they can get when they are with us.

But the article brings the use of poverty into another light. It states,
"the dismaying truth is that we don’t know how to educate poor inner-city and rural kids in this country. In particular, we don’t know how to educate African-American boys, who, according to the Schott Foundation for Public Education, graduate high school at rates no better than fifty-nine per cent." 

Yes, it says we need to address health care and universal preschool, but it also brings about a stark reality- we don't know how to educate poor inner-city and rural kids. What we are doing is not working. At my own school we see this reflected in the behavior data. Our students may be succeeding according to academic numbers, but the data that looks at students' engagement in school and whether or not they've been disciplined points out that something is not working in how we are teaching our minority boys. So what are we missing? What is it that is not working?

Is the public right to blame us? Is it the school's role to look inward and change our approach? Or is it society's role to change early intervention programs, health care, and address poverty itself? Can the schools even begin to change their approach when their hands are tied trying to meet test scores benchmarks? I could argue both sides- the importance of schools making the changes themselves as well as the importance of changing the testing culture so that we free schools up to be creative and open with the students they serve.

Whatever the answer, let's paste the article on every surface imaginable and begin to turn the tide on how the public views teaching. Let's stop humiliating teachers so that we attract quality teachers to the field. Let's get the best and brightest minds to start examining the question of how to make changes so we can better educate all students.

ESEA Reauthorization- What will it mean?

There was a time in my life- before I had children of my own- that I followed education politics closely. I was always ready with an opinion and was quick to weigh in. My 25 year old self was waiting breathlessly for the ESEA re-authorization that passed last week. But my current self? Not so much. The last few years I haven't spent much time following the ins and outs of the education debates and forming my own opinions. The time I spent analyzing education policy is now swept up in re-reading Elephant and Piggy books and plotting how to get two young children to bed without completely going grey.

So it feels strange to read about the new education law passed and to have barely thought about its impact. I've read a few blogs and some helpful graphs, but that's it. Perhaps this is because it does not seem like much has changed. From my role as a teacher within the schools, I don't foresee big changes coming down to us. Particularly for those of us in Virginia, who never adopted the Common Core and seemed to maintain a fairly staunch stand in its determination to maintain state control. But maybe I've adapted this view point simply because I now work in a school that does not feel overly impacted by the changing laws. I'm interested to hear what teachers in turn-around schools think about the changes, and if they predict a big difference in what happens within their school walls next year.

I'm a bit worried that we are going to start giving standardized tests to measure grit and this article from the Washington Post greatly concerned me.

This info graphic from Ed Reform Now is fairly helpful.

Why the idea "Differentiation Doesn't Work" Doesn't Work

Ed Week published Differentiation Doesn't Work last week, which has shown up all over my Feedly and Facebook feed. Just the title itself is jarring and causes a double takes as it goes against so much of what we are being taught. The sentence that keeps getting quoted is, "It seems to me that the only educators who assert that differentiation is doable are those who have never tried to implement it themselves: university professors, curriculum coordinators, and school principals." 

I can imagine this would be a very popular thought. If true- if differentiation doesn't work and it's being shoved onto teachers by those who have never done it- then the game just changed. Teachers can be excused from the expectation of providing differentiation, and can actually be angry about being asked to do it. Not having to provide differentiation makes lives easier. 

Except I can't agree with this at all. 

 The biggest problem is that I don't agree with their definition of differentiation. They write:

• It (differentiation) seeks to determine what students already know and what they still need to learn.

• It allows students to demonstrate what they know through multiple methods.

• It encourages students and teachers to add depth and complexity to the learning/teaching process.

I'd agree with the first and third bullet. For the first, that's what I thought teaching was. If it isn't then I've been doing something wrong. If I don't know what the student knows and needs to know then I'm not sure how I am supposed to do my job. For the third bullet, sure, that's great. I'm not quite sure what they are saying there, but there is nothing wrong with depth and complexity as long as you are constantly going back to the first bullet. Is what you are doing working? Are the students learning? If not, then do you need to get more complex or less complex? What can you change?

The second bullet I believe is referring to learning styles, which have been proved time and time again to be a myth. However, it is hard to say they don't work. They do work, if only because the repetition used when teachers use them is often beneficial to students. They may be a waste of time because teachers could use a more effective method, but there is a reason we believed in them for so long. 

Taking out the learning styles, I believe that differentiation is teaching so that you are constantly adding growth to all students, taking them from wherever they are and moving them forward. Telling teachers that differentiation doesn't work is a dangerous slope.

1) It works. And it isn't that difficult. 

I've used differentiation time and time again in my classrooms. I never once thought it didn't work. I've always wondered why teachers felt it was so hard to implement. It doesn't have to be overly difficult or taxing. It's often a matter of asking thoughtfully tiered questions during focus lessons that drive home the different skills one wants to teach to each group. Or providing open-ended tasks that allow students to approach the assignment at their level. Making three types of similar worksheets- a reteach, a grade level, and a challenge- so that the students are all practicing what they need to practice. Teachers who set up their classrooms in the beginning of the year to provide structures that allow for differentiation will find that it comes seamlessly throughout the year.

2) Not differentiating is predetermining what students will do well and which will fail.

If schools don't differentiate, the alternative is to assign students to tiered classes based on their abilities. This is extremely unfair to the students, and sets us back in closing the achievement gap. Setting up classes based on abilities does not allow students to grow from one ability set to another. It limits the exposure the students in the "lower" groups have to higher level thinking tasks, and removes them from the peer models who are accessing these tasks. Schools will limit a student's ability and opportunities in life by boxing them in. Often a student's language level and socio-economic status will contribute to a student's current ability, but those background factors do not predict future ability. Given the right supports and opportunities students grow. Students meet our expectations. If we limit what we give our students and our expectations for them then we are limiting how high our students can succeed.

3) Students grow and change.

In my current school we are constantly grouping and regrouping our students based on their needs. The grade level team meets with the reading and math specialist every six weeks to look at every student's progress and re-assess the small groups. After being at the school for three years I have seen this be extremely powerful. The students are exposed to the same expectations regardless of their ability during whole group lessons, but are also provided small group instruction based on their current performance. This small group is only for six weeks where the student is given the targeted instruction he needs. After six weeks the student's needs are re-assessed. Students are constantly changing. Their educational growth has spikes, plateaus, and dips, and being flexible as a teacher allows us to meet the student's needs at any given time. Under this model I have watched student after student be exited from special education because of the growth they have made. Students labeled as having disabilities have proven that the disabilities do not impair their ability to work on grade level when they are given the instruction they need.

4) We've lost sight of the outcome.

What do we want from our schools? If we are working on passing tests and nothing more, then yes, putting students inside tracked classes that remain set are a good way to go. We can focus on test prep and learning material that will move students towards passing the tests to the best of their ability. This method forgets that we are looking at creating citizens who will one day run our country. We are not just prepping students to pass a test. We need to give our students every opportunity to succeed. Are we teaching all of our students to be problem solvers, capable of challenging themselves, overcoming obstacles, working independently and in groups, and being motivated learners? All of those skills can be taught in a differentiated classroom, along side the knowledge needed to pass tests.

Perhaps instead of throwing differentiation out the window we need to look at the support we are providing teachers to help them differentiate. Do they have the resources they need to make it work? Are we hiring quality teachers who see differentiation as valuable? Do teachers have time to build quality lessons and reflect with their colleagues on how to reach all their students?

Teaching and Respect

This year I am our school's local screening chair, which basically means I am the special education teacher tapped to sit at the special education meetings that involve determining whether or not a child is or continues to be eligible for special education. It's far from glamorous and involves a lot of paperwork, a careful following of the legal process for finding a student eligible for special education, and scheduling meetings. A lot of scheduling. (Which sounds far easier than it is in reality.)

This is a new role for me and I have a huge learning curve. I like learning new things and usually I thrive on being new at a role and learning all of the ins and outs of a process and the theories behind it. This role is hard. Perhaps because there isn't a lot of theory to learn, but there is a lot of dotting the eyes and crossing the t's. I am enjoying the learning process, but I do find it frustrating that this role is so time consuming and takes away from time with kids.

What I find the most striking about this is that many people act like this is a promotion. The "oh, you are just a teacher" people seem to react with a whole new level of respect when I describe what I do now. Perhaps this is the respect I've been waiting for all these years when I've secretly fumed at cocktail parties from getting the pat on the head and the "A teacher? That's so cute!" comments. But now I'm still fuming. 

I'm not sure how being surrounded by the tedium of paperwork is possibly considered more prestigious than working with kids. Teaching a child to read- that's meaningful and important. Teaching a child learning to speak English, from an underprivileged  background and who is struggling to learn how to read? That's essential. I think of it like being an ER doctor. Every second of the day should be devoted to getting into working with these kids and teaching. That's when the details should matter. That is when everything is on the line. These students have to be successful and it is our job to get them there. 

It's hard for me to reconcile the i dotting and t crossing details of the legal paperwork when there are kids out there not getting reading instruction because I am doing the paperwork. It does not take theory or years of practice and training to put together a packet of documents. I do other tasks besides putting together paperwork, I shouldn't be totally diminishing the role... but it still shouldn't be seen as more prestigious than teaching kids. It kills me that it is.

Why is it that in the teaching profession the more time one is paid to spend with adults the more respect we give them? 

Teacher Pay- Thoughts on the recent Freakonomics Podcast

Last week's Freakonomics podcast was titled, "Is America's Education Problem Really Just a Teacher Problem?"   Yeah. I know. I almost didn't listen to it. I was too worried it would send me into a massive temper tantrum that would ruin the rest of my day. But I got myself prepared to listen and finally hit play.

And I didn't disagree.

In fact, the beginning of it, when it discusses the importance of good teachers, actually inspired me. It made me proud to be a teacher. It laid out all the reasons why teachers are essential to our society, the impact great teachers have on students, and why it should be a more respected profession in our country (and historically why it isn't). And since, of course, it's an economic podcast- why teachers should be paid more.

Paying teachers more is almost always something that is said off hand. I hear it all the time, "Wow, you are a teacher. You all don't get paid enough," "You all deserve much more than we pay you," as though just saying the simple phrase makes up for not paying us as much as what teachers in other countries make. It's similar to saying to my three year old, "Wow, look at that beautiful picture you drew. We could put it in a museum!" Easy to say, easy to sound sincere, but we don't actually plan to take any action to support our words.

It's not about the money, really. It is about what the money represents. We pay more for things we value. In other countries, the podcast discusses, teacher pay is similar to what lawyers make. In those countries (that also have higher test scores) teachers are more respected members of the community. Being a teacher is competitive. Students in the top ten percent of their high school class become teachers. That's not something that is true in America.

But it should be. This job is too important for it to not be competitive to become a teacher.There is too much at stake for our students for us not to be giving them the best and the brightest teachers to work with them.

Increasing teacher pay draws more competition to the field. I bet if you look at the highest performing school districts in our country you would also find that they pay their teachers more than the under performing districts. It isn't that teachers suddenly work harder when they are paid more, it's that a higher salary draws better candidates.

I went to a competitive college where there was barely a teacher education program. I heard time and time again, "Why are you here if you are just going to become a teacher?" That's heart breaking. Many of my peers later became teachers, and became excellent ones. But the atmosphere at the school where everyone was destined to become doctors, lawyers, accountants and CEOs was fairly hostile to anyone entering the field.

There is more to the podcast than just teacher pay. It's worth a listen.

Changes in North Carolina: What is happening to our profession?

I haven't been good about following the North Carolina educational changes this past year, partly because every time I hear something about the legislative changes I am so horrified that I assume it isn't true and I put my hands over my ears and hum loudly to myself. 

Lisa Sorg in Indy Weekly sums the changes up like this:

In education, lawmakers march toward privatizing schools: ending salary increases for many teachers with a master's degree; no longer requiring charter schools to hire licensed teachers; allowing students to use vouchers—taxpayer money—to attend private schools, including religious ones, while draining $90 million from public schools statewide.

This is what I'd been trying to pretend isn't happening.

Sorg's article goes on to profile one of my college classmates who is leaving the state because of these changes. He is quoted as saying, 

"The pay differential is a huge deal. For me, there would be no difference in pay between a master's and a bachelor's degree. [Lawmakers] are saying we want you to saddle yourself with debt, stick with it, and say you're noble for doing it.

So I started broadening my search. This is a good chance to get out of here and go where I would have a chance to make more. People in my situation—single, no kids, no deep roots to North Carolina—are looking to get out of the state. Some teachers can't or don't want to leave; they're not going to give up. But a fair share of them told me to get out of here while I can"

My family has talked about moving to North Carolina to escape the craziness of the DC area. We have family in Charlotte and it would be wonderful to raise Little Lipstick with her cousin. But now? I certainly do not want to move into a state that boldly says, "We do not believe in our public school teachers. We do not believe in the teaching profession, the craft of teaching, or the importance of having good teachers in the field".  I do not want to teach there and I certainly do not want my daughter to go to school there. 

I am always baffled by parent support in changes such as these. I want my daughter to have a teacher who has a masters. I want my daughter to have a teacher who loves her job, is dedicated to the field, feels like a professional and is treated that way by the school system and the state. Teachers who feel like professionals are more likely to take their jobs seriously and put in the hard work and extra hours it takes to do the job well. Disheartened, frustrated teachers who feel disrespected are far more likely to "work their contract" putting in minimal hours to get by and not taking the extra steps that really make a good teacher. It's true in any job. Treat people well, tell them you respect and trust them, that they are invaluable and that their hard work is worth something and they will work even harder for you. 

What's happening to our profession? Are we somehow moving towards un-professionalizing teaching, assuming that anyone who can turn a page in a teachers' manual can teach? How can we spend so much time discussing our broken education system only to decide that to fix it we should actually weaken the system and punish those who want to make it better? 

RESPECT Teacher Movement

As we were getting up to leave from our teacher conversation at the Department of Education on Wednesday afternoon the discussion leaders handed out a leaflet on a new teaching movement coming out of the Department of Ed called RESPECT Teaching.
The ED website states that Recognizing Educational Success, Professional Excellence,and Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT), is a teacher-led movement that has been two years in the making. I'm fascinated, hopeful, and a bit hesitant all at once.

The opening paragraphs in the Blueprint published in April 2012 reads like a teacher call-to-arms. Acknowledging our hard work, dedication and commitment to our jobs, while also stating that our children need more. It lays out a plan for reform that (in my opinion) should have been put in place in the beginning, before NCLB brought teachers vs politicians at war with one another.

The Blueprint doesn't look like it changes anything about current reform methods, or that it is calling for dramatic decrease in testing. What it does is bring teachers into the reform discussion, honoring their talent and hard work and acknowledging what teachers truly need as professionals to grow and thrive.

Reading it makes me excited to be a teacher and gives me a desire to see reform in action. I see my current school within the profession it describes- a focus on continuous growth, an emphasis on collaboration, a positive school culture that leads to the successful education of students, and an engaged community that plays a strong roll in the school. All of these are a part of the seven critical components of the RESPECT project.

I worry that it may be too late. If the Bush administration had rolled this out along with No Child Left Behind we may have reacted to the mandate differently. The only difference in RESPECT and current practices is that it comes from teachers themselves, and instead of saying "we need improvement" instead acknowledges true difficulties in the profession, highlights ways we can improve ourselves while being positive yet firm about the need for growth and change. It doesn't change what is currently happening in education policy, but it states what is happening from a teacher prospective.

What if this was how the education reform movement started?  When high stake testing was introduced to us it was to "hold us accountable", implying that if one didn't hold us accountable we would simply let the children eat bon-bons and watch movies. As educators we became defensive (and rightly so) as the world seemed to turn against us. Reforms didn't come from within, but from politics. Wait, we screamed, we are accountable! We are hard workers! We don't need tests to prove that! What the world heard was "we don't want change" and the political spin became "lazy teachers don't care if children learn".

Sadly, now the RESPECT movement reads like a nice thought, but skeptical educators who are tired of constant reform will see it as a wolf in sheep's clothing, trying hard to win over the teachers in the midst of the war.

Personally I read it with regret and wonder what our schools would look like if a teacher-led movement like this had started education reform. I can only dream of where we'd be.

"Improbable Scholars"

I'm currently reading Improbable Scholars: The Rebirth of a Great American School System and a Strategy for America's Schools by David L. Kirp. (Yes, I have a bit of a problem. Even on spring break I'm thinking about teaching. I'm aware of this problem but I don't see a change coming anytime soon.)

It's one of the most refreshing reads about education policy that I've read in a long time. Kirp follows Union City, New Jersey's school system and cites what works. It's not revolutionized teaching methods, it's not firing teachers, it's not bringing in Teach for America recruits. It's what all good schools do- responding to their students, providing students what they need, promoting collaboration between teachers, analyzing data and providing universal preschool to four year olds.

He writes of the time he spends in George Washington Elementary getting to know the students, the teachers, and the administrators. He writes about the ins and outs of teaching children who just came into the country, of administrative decisions, of within school teacher politics, of the concerns of the parents. His portrayal of Washington Elementary reveals a school similar to the Think Tank, where I taught last year. Very similar students and families, dedicated teachers and a commitment to collaboration.

Reading Improbable Scholars is making me proud to be a teacher- it makes me proud of my years at The Think Tank, and proud of the work I'm doing this year with my brand new school. For once I'm reading something about education policy and not fretting over the politics of it all. Kirp reflects hard working teachers who are determined to do what's best for kids, despite state and national policies. He reflects hard working administrators and politicians who are also equally determined to do what's best for kids. In this portrayal he reminds us that we're not powerless as teachers, which is exactly what my teaching soul needed this week.

One aspect that makes Union City stand out, however, is their commitment to bilingual education. Their students become proficient in their home language first and then transition to learning in English when they are ready. His descriptions about this program make me drool in jealousy. Frequently we'd watch children at The Think Tank struggle because they weren't grounded in any language. Having only a minimal use of Spanish and English they were forced into a languageless state of being. After all, if you don't have words how can you think and reason? For various reasons their home language wasn't secure, and yet we were forcing them to learn another language. The result tended to be weakness in both languages, which doesn't help reasoning and problem solving skills in the long term. I love reading about how Union City created supports for these children to guarantee that this doesn't happen.

Bi-lingual education is a hot-button political issue and sadly I don't see it changing anytime soon here in Virginia. But it's good to know that somewhere out there is an entire school system following the research and making a difference.

Going to the Source

I sat in my car in the parking lot of my school Monday morning so that I could hear the end of NPR's story on what Children's Hospital in Boston did to meet the needs of its child asthma patients. Everything the story discussed hit home. 

When I worked at the Think-Tank we had so many children who had breathing and health issues. Children who live in subsidized apartments frequently face problems with asthma from everything from poorly cleaned carpets to an increase in cockroaches. This causes them to miss school- and we all know that we can only teach children when they come to school consistently.

I was thrilled to see that a hospital was reaching out past just treating the patient and instead going to the root cause of the problem. Through parent education and treating the environment, they were able to improve the child's health, reduce emergency room visits, and increase the days the child was able to go to school. What's more, although the program was expensive to implement, the study showed that for every dollar it spent, it saved $1.46. 

We need more of this- not just this program itself, but we need more people thinking outside of the box and looking at ways we can educate one another so that we can be proactive instead of reactive. We need this in education as well as in medicine. 

what parents want?

This article is worth the read. Beyond anything else, it is a great reminder that when we say "good school" we aren't talking about a specific, set criteria that everyone agrees on. When people are thinking about the culture where their child will spend significant hours of his or her life, test scores may not matter as much as how teachers speak to children, and how parents are treated.

The article is a fascinating look at school choice and the ins and outs of cultural norms in education.

Can I get an Amen?

Somehow John Chubb's article on the Best Teachers in the World manages to insult me and vindicate me all in one swoop. If you don't have time to read the whole thing Joanne Jacobs does an excellent job of summarizing it.

Chubb begins by discussing Peabody College, the education college at Vanderbilt University and the intellectual demands it places on its teaching candidates (which happens to be where one of my amazing former co-workers went). Peabody is exactly what we need all over the country to prepare teachers- an academically challenging and competitive college that attracts candidates who could also compete in other top rank schools in other fields. There teaching is not seen as the easy path, or the "I can't be a doctor or a lawyer so I guess I'll be a teacher" major. 

Chubb goes on to write, "Teaching is not an art, to which some are born and others are not. It is an intellectually demanding endeavor that can and should be guided by research-based practice. Teachers should be trained, both before they take charge of a classroom and thereafter. They should not be trained, however, in the schools of education that predominate today." 

Jacob sites- "The US needs to recruit high achievers to teaching and give them 'work that is less menial and more expert, less prescribed and more responsible,' Chubb writes."

It makes me want to cry.

Yes, yes, yes.

Raise the standards of my profession. Raise the expected SATs to get into teacher prep programs. Make it difficult to graduate from a teaching college. Raise our expectations of what we do in the classroom- NOT through giving us prescribed curriculum designed to be "idiot proof" but by using the intellect of the teachers in the room to design instruction to meet the needs of their students. Make teaching an intellectual profession. Please.

Chubb's argument is one I've been making for years. Seeing it in print validates my beliefs but also makes me want to cry- because right there in black and white it paints a brush of our profession as being fairly, well, dumb. 

The answer to much of this, I feel, sadly is money. 

 Not because I want more money, but because something has got to change in our profession. We are spending time, resources, money and messing around with our children's education and future all to try to micro-manage a profession that could be fixed in one way-

Pay teachers more.

Paying teachers more will validate the career path.

Paying teachers more will encourage the best and the brightest students to become teachers.

Paying teachers more will allow quality teachers to stay in the profession.

Paying teachers more will make it a more competitive field where it will become easier to weed out poorly performing teachers, or not hire them at all.

Paying teachers more will initiate a national change in mind-set where as a culture we begin to respect the profession, which in turn will attract smarter candidates.

Sadly it's a chicken or the egg question. No one will agree to pay teachers more while we don't respect the work teachers do. When teaching is still seen as the "well, you can't do anything else but at least you can teach" option no one wants to pay teachers more. And until they pay teachers more they are not going to attract higher achieving candidates. And until we attract higher achieving candidates we're not going to change the nation's mindset of the teaching profession. And until we change the nation's mindset of the teaching profession we're not going to pay teachers more.

Now I'm depressed. Why didn't I go to law school when it was still possible to get a job when you got out of law school?

*I have other thoughts on what the article says about Teach for America but I'll share those for another time. That would make this post much, much longer...

*Face Palm* Value Added Common Sense

This was a study? Really? Isn't this common sense? I guess I should be happy that someone went out to prove an argument that we've been trying to point out since value added measures first began to be discussed...

The abstract of the study says:
 We find that failing to account for tracks leads to large biases in teacher value-added estimates.  A teacher of all lower track courses whose measured value-added is at the 50th percentile could increase her measured value-added to the 99th percentile simply by switching to all upper-track courses.  We estimate that 75-95 percent of the bias is due to student sorting and the remainder due to test misalignment. We also decompose the remaining bias into two parts, metric and multidimensionality misalignment, which work in opposite directions.  Even after accounting for explicit tracking, the standard method for estimating teacher value-added may yield biased estimates.

From: 

Panel Paper: Bias of Public Sector Worker Performance Monitoring: Theory and Empirical Evidence From Middle School Teachers

Holding us accountable

On Friday afternoon one of my teammates and I sat down to attempt to plan our Thanksgiving unit. We were looking at all of the teaching objectives we need to hit- the students' IEP goals, the state testing standards, the county report card standards, the county grade level curriculum, and the boxed programs we are suppose to teach (which do not correspond with state standards or the county curriculum) for each of our grade levels (between us we have to cover grades K-5).  Not wanting to be a pessimist I was determined that we could pull this off. I mean, if someone tells me it's possible then I'm going to make it happen.

I'm new to this position. I'm still learning that the people who tell us what's possible have no idea. They are hoping naive teachers like me will make it possible. 

I don't have anyone in a testing grade, but she does. Our kiddos are not going to take the standardized state test but instead, because as teachers we still need to be held accountable, we must create binders for each child showing that we taught the specific testing requirements and that the children completed the tasks and know the information. We poured over past binders looking at exactly all the work that would need to be done in order to show what had been taught. Still wanting to be positive I took a deep breath and explained a plan to achieve what needed to be taught in a meaningful way. If we are deliberate about it up front then we can still have good teaching- right?

She looked at me sadly, the way you look at a child who asks to go trick or treating the day after Halloween. Oh honey, that's cute, and so, so, not going to happen.

This has to be done by the end of January, she pointed out. And went on to explain the timeline that needed to happen in order for this massive binder to be produced and submitted for grading by the end of the year.

And it was at that moment I lost any positive outlook I had left about this job. 

This. is. crap.

I was OK with teaching standards that didn't really matter to kids who truly need to know life skills. I was OK with putting kids through tasks and worksheets as long as I could at least attempt to make them meaningful. I actually enjoy looking at all the standards and goals and creating units that will meet all of them. I love finding ways to teach all of these objectives organically and in meaningful ways. I love linking it all together. 

But to tell me that it all has to be done by January- that I'm not actually suppose to make these things meaningful to the kids- I'm not suppose to be a good teacher. I'm suppose to give a child a meaningless worksheet, briefly teach the subject and then re-teach it over and over again until the child can perform it for that worksheet only. Then I put the worksheet into a plastic sleeved binder along with all the other worksheets that have been a complete waste of time and I submit it for a grade. A meaningless grade because the child isn't actually expected to know the information because I wasn't expected to actually teach the information. It is a binder just for show.

I know, I know. Many of you are shaking your heads. How could I be naive after ten years of teaching? 

I really lived in my happy, naive place where I believed that if I deliberately planned out instruction and made it meaningful then I could teach the standards AND life skills and that the combination would be better for my kids. High expectations along with realistic, important expectations.

The thing is, I'd like to meet a parent of a child with an intellectual disability who WANTS their child to go through this mess. I can't imagine one of my parents saying, "Oh yes, I want to know that my child can identify the Powhatan Indians on a worksheet. Please spend valuable time making sure that my child can identify the Powhatan Indians vs other American Indian tribes on a worksheet. That's more important than knowing how to safely cross the street, identifying the letters, telling me that they love me, or counting to 10. And make sure it is on a worksheet. Not a fun hands-on activity that can help my child distinguish between American Indians and settlers, but a worksheet. Yes, as a parent, please give me that data. I need to know that my child's teacher is being held accountable just like all the other teachers."

I've heard numerous parents complain about this process. So why are we doing it? Why are we taking away from quality instruction? To tell politicians and the public that special education teachers are also being held accountable? 

It's an amazing waste of time and resources. No one is benefiting from this. Not the kids, not the parents, not the schools or the teachers. We're jumping through a hoop because someone told us to, and no one can tell us why other than saying, "Because you must be held accountable."

I'm not sure how long I can participate in this.

comparing apples, oranges, bananas, and ice cream

This is so ridiculous I don't even know how to formulate my frustration.


I appreciate that states are trying to find a way to evaluate special education teachers without using the same standardized tests on children with disabilities. However, Florida's decision to compare children with like disabilities is a bit much. It's a wonderful reminder of how the people making policy decisions are not the ones in the classroom working in reality. All children are different but our children with disabilities are each unique and in many ways probably have more in common with typically developing children than others who happen to share their special education label. Just because two children happen to have tested as having a similar IQ or happen to have an educational diagnosis of an Intellectual Disability does not mean that they are going to have the same learning rates and progress.

I know states want to find the best method to measure special education teachers, but I don't see why what happens now doesn't work. Currently we take base line data on each student and then work our rear ends off to improve that baseline data and meet the individualized IEP goals. That's just a bit difficult for a state to measure. The reason we write IEP goals is because the students require an Individualized Program. If they were similar we would be able to take the I out of IEP and just have an "autism" plan or a "Intellectual Disability" plan.

teeth grinding anger

This is one of the most horrifying articles I've ever read about education. It's about the published test results in NY and how the press reacted to what it saw as the lowest performing teacher- an ELL teacher who was screwed by the statistics. The cold numbers don't tell the full story- and the cold numbers are all anyone looked at. Read it yourself- I can't begin to summarize it without getting myself worked up and irritated. It's the classic example of the damange statistics can do in the hands of people who do not understand statstics and numbers.

Here's an excerpt:

"As in many other cases, the story of Pascale Mauclair and P.S. 11 begins with a tale of the flawed methodology and invalid measurements of the Teacher Data Reports.

P.S. 11 is located at the epicenter of a number of different immigrant communities in northern Queens, and over a quarter of its students are English Language Learners. Mauclair is an ESL teacher, and over the last five years she has had small, self-contained classes of recently arrived immigrants who do not speak English. Her students arrive at different times of the school year, depending upon that date of their family’s migration; consequently, it is not unusual for her students to take the 6^th grade exams when they have only been in her class for a matter of a few months. Two factors which produce particularly contorted TDR results – teaching the highest academic need students and having a small sample of students that take the standardized state exams – define her teaching situation."

How did we get here? And how do we get back?

Maybe the public doesn't hate us...

The 2011 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll came out this week and it turns out that while the media has portrayed us public school teachers as public enemy number 1, the actual public doesn't see it that way.

You can read the highlights here

Or more details here

Most people still believe that teaching is an important career.  In fact, 76% of people felt that high achieving high school students should go into teaching. 71% trust us as teachers.

73% believe teachers should have flexibility when planning their curriculum as opposed to using a prescribed curriculum.

Surprise, surprise, most people have seem more negative portrayals of schools in the media than positive portrayals. I'm starting to think that the media is our children's biggest enemy. I guess portraying teachers as lazy and dumb sells, but I'm glad the public hasn't totally bought it.

when will we realize we're all on the same team?

A good friend mentioned a piece in the NY Daily News about the polarization of the education debate. The article presents education reform as the new abortion- two sides completely at odds with one another- with little respect for one another's opinions, theories, and beliefs. That's certainly what it feels like as a teacher- that the entire world has turned against us- and I was curious to read the article.


I think the article has a lot of truths to it, but I also think it in itself is very telling of the debate as a whole. It seems to state that the two sides are Reform vs Teachers- those who want to improve the education of our children and close the achievement gap, and those who want to live with the status quo.


For an article attempting to point out the differences between the two platforms I could easily tell you what side the author of the article falls on- and it's not pro-teacher.


When I first moved to DC out of college and told people I was a teacher I got the "oh, cute" responses when I was out and about. I found myself trying to prove my intellect to these strangers and somehow show that I had made a better choice than my peers when I decided to go into teaching and not law school.  I could live with the condescension- I knew what I was doing day to day was extremely important. But now when I tell people I'm a teacher I almost watch then recoil in horror. "Not one of them...  those creatures trying to hold our kids down?" I feel they want to ask. "Why don't you do real work that will make a difference, like work at a non-profit? You didn't do Teach for America? You must have only gotten into teaching for the summers, not to improve the lives of children in underprivileged areas"


This new condescension is worse- before I was ok with my intellect being questioned, but now it is my intellect AND my motives. My passions. Why I get out of bed in the morning.
When I talk about the amazing things my school does people immediately ask, "Oh, you work at a charter school?"
NO! I want to scream. A public school!  And surprise, we are not the devil! We work our a**s off for our kids- we want the BEST for them. Yes, at a public school!
But now I'm letting my emotions get in the way of my argument and I no longer sound reasonable. I'm only proving their point- that I am a hot-headed teacher.


When did we become public enemy number one?


I think my biggest problem with the debate is the assumption that teachers are against reform. We absolutely want the best for our kids. Do we want more testing? No, but not because we are lazy, we are scared for our jobs, or because we have low expectations for our kids. We don't believe testing, as it has been implemented, improves the students' education. In fact, in many ways, when working in the trenches, we watch how it is a determinate to actual student learning. We watch how children lose out on essential instructional time because of the amount of classroom time dedicated to test prep. We struggle knowing what best practices are and knowing they are out of our reach as we drill and kill for the test.


We want reform, but we'd like to have a straightforward conversation about how that is best done. Yet anytime one of us opens our mouth we're immediately told that we have low expectations for our students- after that our arguments are cut off at the knees. We mention what we know are best practices- research-based practices that will give success but no one wants to hear it. We're told that where we learned those best practices and theories- in graduate school- was a waste of time. The general public tells us that we only went back to school to get a raise in pay, that our masters degrees are worthless, and that we are simply working the system.


I'd love to have a real conversation on reform with someone from the other side- when just once 'high expectations' and 'what's best for kids' are not phrases used as shields to protect themselves from having to acknowledge what they do not know about teaching, but instead as phrases that will truly let us find the right answer.
The author of the article writes:
"From the perspective of most teachers, poverty explains education problems. A valid point. Reformers insist that school quality, especially effective teaching, can make a sizable dent in the learning inequities we see across the lines of race and income. Also a valid point."


I don't think we, as teachers, are standing around saying, "Our kids can't learn because they are poor, therefore we wont try." We'd like to find exactly how to make a change in teaching to reach ALL children. Sometimes we have to acknowledge that children come from different backgrounds in order to make sure they will be successful. My kindergartners do not come in knowing the alphabet. Therefore I cannot start teaching them to read as though they all went to preschool.  I need to back up and make sure they know the alphabet. This doesn't mean I have low expectations- I still expect them to learn to read by the end of the year- but I first have to acknowledge that the road to get there will be different than at another school.  We're not using poverty as an excuse, but we do need to acknlowedge it in order to match the curriculum with our children.


YES- we want to have great schools and effective teaching- we WANT to make a sizable dent in learning inequities. We just want to do it the right way. Yet frequently what is brought to us as reform is just additional testing- it's not how to improve instruction. (But remember, if we go back to grad school to learn to improve instruction we're clearly wasting our time). Too many reformers do not have a background in education, do not understand how children learn, and do not have a grasp on recent break throughs in best practices.  When someone comes to us with a true, improved teaching idea we celebrate. We sit through afternoon workshops we don't get paid for in order to learn how to improve our teaching. We are always seeking how to improve our teaching. Yet what is brought to us by "reformers" is not helping our teaching.  We'd love it if it was different. 


Amanda Ripley, who writes for Time was quoted in the article saying:


"You're either with us or against us. What bothered me was that some of these people, who have significant influence on the lives of our kids, seem to have lost all curiosity about this complex subject. That's ironic, given they work in a field that should value curiosity."


Teachers are some of the most curious people I know. We want to learn- in fact, we'd like to have some genuine discussions about this with those in ed reform. When was the last time we were asked? When was the last time someone in ed reform brought us along in a discussion instead of merely criticizing us? 


I'm going to stop there because, well, I'm not sure anyone is still reading. I'm usually a calm person, but anytime my motives, passion, and intellect are challenged I get a bit hot. In the next few days I'll try to write calmer, more intelligent pieces on education that actually flow. I promise. Don't delete me from your reader yet.  

Visions, Innovation & Change

I'm ashamed it's been so long since I've blogged last (over a week!) but I've been swimming in my thoughts from EduCon trying to synthesize all the ideas I heard. I've felt absolutely too overwhelmed to post. And then, this evening, when I arrived home from grad class and pulled up my notes on my ipad...  they were gone. Stupid inotepad note taker thing didn't save all of my notes. All of those ideas I thought I was remembering correctly but wrote down just to be sure... gone. The quote about innovation for students from poverty...  gone.

So bare with me as I try to synthesize from memory alone...

First of all, I really had no idea what to expect going into EduCon. One of my fabulous co-workers had been the previous two years and always came back raving about it. She finally convinced me to go and I'm really glad I did. I enjoyed the small conference feel and the structure- instead of presentations each session is really designed to be a conversation where you are able to dive into deeper debates of what is needed at the heart of education by pushing one another to ask hard questions and share ideas/visions/goals.

The session I got the absolute most out of was on change. The presenters began by recognizing that one of the problems in education is that all of our long-term visions for education tend to be different, which makes it hard to initiate policy change on a global scale. We're all talking about different overall visions and goals for education. She asked us to share our broader visions, which led to a fascinating discussion on student self-advocacy, the skills students need to take part in their learning, and the tools we need to get us there. It was interesting to hear from all the different view points- the academic doctoral student working on his dissertation, the instructional coach, the technology specialist, an education consultant working with school districts, a guidance counselor, and a high school teacher. Everyone came from different backgrounds- some of us worked with children from poverty while some worked with children in higher socio-economic situations. Some worked in private schools bound by small resources while others of us worked in large public school districts bound by the greater structure of a large bureaucracy. For the most part, surprisingly, (perhaps because we are all people who chose to come to this unique conference) we all realized our visions for our students and education as a whole was to give students the tools they needed to be successful, teach them to advocate for themselves, teach them it was acceptable to fail as long as they continue to try (take risks), and to ensure that all adults are collaborating together to meet their needs.
So we have a vision, but how do we get there?  We hemmed and hawed over policies, top-down regulations and initiatives, statements and roles of principals and school boards. Yet in the end, what we all found ourselves settling on was that we can't wait for the top to change. If we want change we need to each fight for it individually within our own classrooms. We need to follow our own visions, ask for forgiveness instead of permission, get creative and do what needs to be done in order to work with our kids. In some ways it's an overwhelming and depressing order- the system's never going to change so it's up to you- but in other ways it is freeing. You're never going to get exactly what you want from the system so go ahead and give yourself permission to do what you know how to do best.
If we want to bring innovation to our students (the theme of the conference) we can't wait for the reauthorization of NCLB to suddenly give us permission to do so. We need to bring the innovation to our students ourselves, in anyway we can within the structure we're working in.
As one of the opening panel speakers explained (and I don't know who or have the exact quote because my notes are gone...) nobody talks about innovation with students at high risk or from poverty. Innovation becomes something only the middle and upperclass are privilege enough to be encouraged to experiment with in school. Our children in under-performing schools don't have that privlege.
At this point no one is going to tell us we have to encourage student innovation in our under-performing schools, or with our at-risk children. Yet we can't deny them the chance to learn through the drive to innovate, explore and create. So it's up to us to find ways to bring innovation into our own classrooms in order to fill that gap.

Exhausted from a long weekend with other thoughts floating in my head I have been inspired and overwhelmed by this idea all at once. But it's true. I can't wait on anyone else to make my vision for my students come true.

*my fabulous co-presenter/co-teacher did a great write-up on our google-doc presentation. Check it out!*

Leadership & management

As I stared at the internship essay topics early this morning, still hoping to knock at least one out before officially going back to school, I realized what the problem is. Every one of them asks for an essay describe your leadership or management experience within your school. That sounds totally reasonable at first glance, people want hard worker, candidates with vision, intelligence, the ability to make things happen and inspire others. In most professions those qualities would lead to leadership roles.
Yet at the think-tank I think we work hard to not have specific leaders and followers. We work together as a team, even with our instructional coaches. We are all pretty much officially on the same place in the hierarchy of the school, but not in the 'we all feel powerless together' type of way. Instead we all feel we have a voice, a place in the collaborative conversation. There are few top down initiatives. No one can say they developed this one activity, lesson, unit or theory in isolationand I don't think anyone wants to. The people I know who maybe could say that never would- they bring their ideas to teams in order to develop a better collaborative product. They know that without real teacher buy-in nothing will ever truly be accomplished. Real changes will never make it into the hands of the children.
All of this makes for an excellent school, but not a place to necessarily rise up with personal leadership opportunities. Because it's not about the adults inside the building, it's about the kids and their success. I have a hard time even wanting to sell myself to orgnizations wanting to know one way I single handledly changed an initiative at my school. Because if they think single-handed initiatives are the way to solve education then I'm sure I'll enjoy working there anyway.

Ah, Virginia

A few years ago I blogged about the horror of finding inaccurate brand new text books in my mother's second grade classroom.
That was in September 2008. Since then teachers all over Va have used these historically incorrect books to teach.
Last week, last week, December 2010,2 years later, Va textbooks were reported in the mass media to historically inaccurate.
There is so much to say about this and yet, the first day of the new year I can't bring myself to rant.